The New york Times

April 1, 1999

Blair's Balkan Edge

By PETER KELLNER

LONDON -- Oddly enough, of all the political leaders of the NATO countries, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain is emerging as the one with the clearest objectives in Kosovo and the fewest domestic constraints. If NATO finds that air strikes are not enough to curb the aggressive policies of Slobodan Milosevic, Blair will probably be at the forefront of any debate to escalate military force.

In recent days Blair, in common with other NATO leaders, has ruled out the intervention of ground troops. But if circumstances call for that decision to be re-evaluated, he is the Western leader most likely to embrace a more determined strategy.

The main reason is that, for once, Britain's recent history and current Constitution are assets rather than liabilities. Our usual neuroses -- guilt about our imperial past, shame about our feeble economic growth, nervousness about our relations with Europe and uncertainty about our "special relationship" with the United States -- do not apply in this crisis.

Unlike the Americans, for whom the trauma of Vietnam overshadows more recent victories, post-imperial Britain has great confidence in its military record. It defeated Argentina roundly in the Falklands war in 1982, and it has discharged itself honorably in Northern Ireland, which is now moving -- albeit slowly and erratically -- toward peace.

Britain's last big military debacle -- its ill-fated attempt to regain control of the Suez Canal -- happened more than 40 years ago.

Yes, lives were lost in the Falklands and the Northern Ireland conflict. But the public has accepted those losses, for the most part, as the price of worthwhile ventures rather than as symbols of military and political failure.

As a result, if a new strategy is needed in Kosovo that puts British lives at risk, Blair will be able to consider it on its merits without worrying that the first death of a British soldier will undermine his support at home.

As long as the cause is just and the strategy effective, he should be able to carry domestic opinion with him.

By contrast, the overwhelming display of risk-free American air power in the Persian Gulf handicaps President Clinton in any debate on using ground troops now.

In addition, unlike some of his fellow NATO leaders, Blair faces no significant opposition at home. The Labor Party enjoys a majority of 179 in the 659-member House of Commons, insulating him against the Conservative opposition, which for now is giving guarded support to his policy in Kosovo. Add to that his continuing 20-point lead over the Conservatives in the opinion polls, and Blair's domestic position is far stronger than that of Gerhard Schr der, the Germany Chancellor, whose new coalition is already in trouble, and Jacques Chirac, the President of France, who must coexist with a Socialist Prime Minister and a National Assembly dominated by the left.

And unlike President Clinton, Blair has complete control over his legislature. Britons often regret the dominance our chief executive enjoys. Sometimes we envy the checks and balances of the United States Constitution. But when decisive action is needed, when hard choices need to be made fast, Britain' s parliamentary system has its merits.

Of course, it could all go horribly wrong. Decisive action could lead to loss of life without any compensating gain. And all the opinion polls of the past week suggest that British support for NATO's raids is wide but shallow. For the moment, though, Blair has exceptional freedom to maneuver, and he is showing the determination and temperament to use that freedom forcefully.

Peter Kellner is a columnist for The Evening Standard